One of George Mason Law School’s alumni proposed the Sodomite Suppression Act, which said that under certain circumstances, it will authorize the execution of gays and lesbians “bullets to the head” or “any other convenient method”.
The person in question is Matt McLaughlin, a California lawyer who submitted the initiative with the state Department of Justice. His bill was received the initiative coordinator at the Office of the Attorney General last Feb. 26, enclosed with a $200 check and a complete text of his Sodomite Suppression Act. One of the most damning lines in his proposal reads: “a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha”
In June last year, he already made headlines by contradicting the ruling that made death penalty unconstitutional in California. Mr. McLaughlin made it clear in his “manifesto” that “any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”
Another entity also received international criticism by enacting the same law, only nationwide. Russian President Vladimir Putin and the national parliament unanimously adopted a law banning the distribution of materials promoting LGBT relationships among minors. It even prohibited saying of the word “homosexuality”.
This prompted a widespread crackdown on gay people in Russia, which showed the ugly effect of the new law. In California, where LGBT rights are adamantly protected, it’s expected that the law would be banished. For it to be voted by the larger population, it must obtain 350,000 signatures.
Kamala Harris was criticized for requesting “title and summary”, which would force the executive branch to take the initiative seriously. Although she said in her official statement published in website of the Office of the Attorney General that: “This proposal not only threatens public safety, it is patently unconstitutional, utterly reprehensible, and has no place in a civil society.”
George Mason Law School did not take time in issuing a response. In it, they vehemently distanced their educational institution from the initiative, saying that “it is not the function of schools or other institutions to denounce things with which they have nothing to do. Law schools are not guarantors of the views or acts of their former students.”
A report by NPR, which contains a conversation with a professor of Law, stated that actions like this are unconstitutional.